I should mention to you: you’re going to get some historical context; and you should
know it’s not in any way meant to draw parallels between Adolf Hitler and any current political
figures in Germany
It’s intended, as will become clear, to contextualize the election system.
German politics of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s were chaotic.
Just before the July 1932 elections, the Nazi SA and communists were openly fighting one
another in the streets of Berlin.
For the first time in Germany’s Weimar Republic, formed after World War 1, an election resulted
in a majority of seats in parliament won for parties aligned against the Republic.
This is a deep irony, so let me make it clear for you.
The Nazi party and the Communist party won a majority of seats in the Bundestag, both
parties who had no interest in continuing with the republican system of government; they
had both, for different reasons, vowed to kill the Weimar Republic- and, had they not
refused to work with each other, could have controlled that government they vowed to kill.
The elections of 1932 were early anyways.
The last, held in 1930, resulted in a coalition that fell apart.
As a result, new elections were called.
Because Nazis and Communists didn’t want to work together- surprise surprise, the July
1932 election resulted in the same Chancellor as before, Franz von Papen, leading a minority
government for...around 2 months, until yet another election could be called.
When the results were tallied after that election in November 1932, the results were equally
as inconclusive, with the Nazi party still winning the most seats in the Bundestag, but
not a majority.
Through negotiation, Hitler was eventually able to form a governing coalition, after
which he immediately called for new elections in order to solidify his “Machtergreifung”,
his taking of power.
And thus, from the chaos…
It would be fallacious to claim that Hitler exclusively took power based on tumultuous
and numerous elections, but the environs of political instability certainly created the
possibility.
Therefore, 16 years later, the drafters of the new German Grundgesetz, Basic Law, were
tasked with how to avoid that situation from ever happening again.
The logical question lay before them: how we do make the political system more stable?
How do we stop the continuous turnover in government from which radicals thrive?
In effect, how do we make it harder to call new elections?
After a very long search and help from a professor at my University, I have an answer for you.
Let’s, you and me, jump into the present day, to what happened in September, to see
the workings and the consequences of what those drafters put into the West German Grundgesetz.
When Angela Merkel announced her bid for a fourth term as Germany’s Chancellor, she
claimed she still had ‘more to give’ as a public servant, but it was obvious from
the outset that the voting public was beginning to sour on the two largest parties: Angela
Merkel’s CDU, the Christian Democratic Union, a center-right party- and SPD, the Social
Democratic Party led by Martin Schulz.
Since 2013, the two parties had governed together in a grand coalition, meaning any issues with
the country the electorate was feeling could easily be assigned to the two parties running
the show.
So it was no surprise on September 24th when both Merkel’s CDU and Schulz’s SPD lost
part of their vote share, remaining the largest parties in the Bundestag, but nonetheless
ceding ground to smaller parties in the election.
Notable among them, the AfD, Alternative for Germany, we’ll come back to them- the FDP,
Free Democratic Party, a classical liberal party- the Linke, the left, as you might guess
a leftist party, and the Grüne, the Green party.
As the largest vote getter, Merkel had the right to seek out coalition partners and form
a government, but problems began immediately.
Already, Martin Schulz had made it clear that SPD did not wish to continue as part of Merkel’s
governing coalition, meaning she would have to seek out other partners.
So the next most logical choice was a three-party coalition between Merkel’s Christian Democratic
Union, the FDP, Free Democratic Party, and the Greens.
This was deemed the “Jamaica”, the Jamaica coalition on account of the colors of each
party corresponding to a color on the jamaican flag.
But talks between the three parties were complicated.
Not only was the FDP, a party more likely to oppose state intervention in the economy,
and odd bed fellow for the Greens, a party dedicated to further environmental regulations,
but the two of them were negotiating a deal with Merkel’s CDU, a party already in an
ongoing alliance with a more conservative Bavarian Christian Union, called CSU.
If you’re having a hard time wrapping your head around juggling 4 parties of varying
ideology, so did negotiators.
That’s why talks between the parties fell apart not long ago, raising the prospects
of new elections.
But calling a new election in Germany isn’t easy.
When similar political drama occured after Spain’s 2015 elections, when Spain’s largest
party, the partido popular was unable to form a coalition, the King of Spain just dissolved
the Spanish Parliament and new elections were held in early 2016.
It’s way more complicated in Germany.
After an election, the Bundestag selects a Chancellor with a majority vote.
If this doesn’t happen, the Bundestag has 14 days to try again and again and again to
make someone Chancellor with a majority vote.
If this still hasn’t happened after two weeks, the Bundestag takes one final vote.
If someone gets a majority in this vote, they’re made Chancellor.
If not, the Federal President can choose: make the person with the most votes Chancellor,
or finally, dissolve the Bundestag, calling new elections.
And if Merkel could form a coalition, but then have it break down, this gets even more
complicated between elections.
In “A History of West Germany” Volume 1, Dennis Bark and David Gress wrote about
the challenges against calling new elections outside of the time prescribed by the Grundgesetz:
“The Basic Law did not permit the dismissal of a chancellor in a ‘vote of no-confidence’
without the simultaneous election [within the Bundestag] of a successor.
This ‘constructive vote of no-confidence’ was designed to prevent the country from being
without a government”
The only way to have an election outside of the normal 4 year intervals, they wrote, was
to have the sitting chancellor to request the confidence of the Bundestag, and to have
the Bundestag reject that motion (Bark & Gress, 251).
As you heard me say earlier, the writers of the German Basic Law were well aware of the
events surrounding 1932 and 1933.
In this way, Germany is still paying the price today for the collapse of their Republic over
80 years ago.
Not only do Angela Merkel and the rest of Germany not want new elections, but the German
Grundgesetz makes this exceedingly difficult to do.
When Theresa May ran for reelection as the UK’s Prime Minister, she dubbed herself
strong and stable.
She was unsuccessfully attempting to emulate what really, Angela Merkel had been for Europe
since 2005, a known quantity in Western Europe.
Germany has struggled with issues of migration, but overall, it has been party to low unemployment
and even a budget surplus as many of its partners in the European Union have been plagued with
dwindling prosperity and budget deficits.
With President Trump, Brexit, Russia, with so much going on in the world, Germans don’t
want their government to become another point of instability.
That’s why social democrats under Martin Schulz agreed this week to come back to the
table and reconsider another grand coalition with Merkel and CDU.
I should just add in my personal opinion, even if those talks are successful, they won’t
have addressed the underlying issues that caused both of those parties to lose votes
in the first place.
The looming threat?
A right-wing nationalist and populist party called the AfD, the Alternative for Germany,
opposed to Merkel’s policies on the refugee crisis of 2016.
They rode anti-establishment sentiment to 12.6% of the vote and gained nearly 100 seats
in the Bundestag, making them the 3rd largest party, and as one of my Patrons pointed out,
making them the official opposition if CDU and SPD strike out for another grand coalition.
There’s an irony here: in Germany’s desire for stability, they’ve created relative
instability.
Is this the crisis?
Or is this a delay of the crisis?
Let’s say Angela Merkel does get her governing coalition.
It’s grants stability today, but does that come at the price of creating the chaos of
tomorrow?
This was one of the fastest turnarounds I’ve made on an exploration in a long time.
And that’s only possible because of this community here, my patrons, and you, my subscribers.
Thank you.
Later guys.